- From: Tom Pixley <joki@netscape.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 14:57:42 -0800
- To: "'www-dom@w3.org'" <www-dom@w3.org>
- CC: John Lemire <jlemire@microsoft.com>
John Lemire wrote: > > 2) I like how you are enforcing tag/style/programmatic registration to > coexist. I would also like to see you specify that events that can be added > via one mechanism can be added via the others. There are examples in IE > where inline event specifying: > <tag id="abc" onxxx="xxhandler( );">....</tag> > doesn't work but > <script for="abc" event="xxx"> > ... > </script> > does. This really sucks big and should be purged... The only mechanism for event handler registration that we're specifying in the spec is the programmatic model. We also are tasked with ensuring the new model will coexist with the existing HTML 4.0 model. If other methods of specifying event handlers exist they can certainly be made to work with the DOM event model but we don't explicitly support them. > 3) I would like to see an events attribute modeled after the style attribute > ala > <tag id="xyz" style="border: solid; background-color: red;" > events="mouseover: onMouseOver( ); mouseout: onMouseOut( ); click: onClick( > );"> > so that all events including non-DOM defined ones could pass validation as > well as well-formed-ness. > validation has this problem today with "expando" tag attributes which are > handy for HTML authors who aren't script savy and some sort of "expando" > attribute would have nicely solved this. Feel free to add this too ubt > certainly make sure events don't suffer similarly... This is really more a change to HTML than it is to the DOM. As such, its kind of outside of our scope. I too would like to see a better mechanism for event handler registration inside of the HTML tag syntax. I have seen proposals similar to the one you suggest and I think that's probably the right direction. However, the HTML working group is the one which much accept the proposal. > thanks > johnl -tom
Received on Monday, 1 March 1999 17:57:37 UTC